This post is not about the Wall Street protesters, well, yes it is, but not about the Occupy Wall Street protest of 2011. A century ago, people were not any happier about what went on in New York City's financial district.

On September 16, 1920, an explosion at the corner of Wall and Broad Streets in downtown Manhattan killed 39 people and wounded hundreds more. It would be the deadliest terror attack on American soil until the Oklahoma City bombing 75 years later. Despite its proximity to the attacks on New York on September 11, 2001, the Wall Street bombing of 1920 has more in common with the public sentiment at the Occupy Wall Street protests in lower Manhattan today—with one notable exception. Today’s protesters are committed to nonviolence. The anarchists of yesteryear were not. They largely failed in their attacks on capitalism and Wall Street—and their tactics turned public sentiment against their cause.

That bombing was the culmination of decades of violence on Wall Street, which involved suicide bombs, union-busting mercenaries, and gunfire. After the 1920 bombing, cooler heads prevailed, and everything was hunky-dory on Wall Street ...for about nine years. Link

So were the 1920's bombers. For that matter, so was the Unabomber (to keep the comparison going). Is their effort going to yield anything productive? The USA isn't Egypt or Libya. Is "raising awareness" effective?

Wow, way to try and belittle someone with an alternate point of view. Isn't that one of the things they're protesting against?

I saw the statement, and it's not the fact that it's bigger than my tiny attention span can manageto comprehend. I mean, so what if it's a Unabomber-sized manifesto? No, it's the fact that it's all-encompassing. Got a beef? It's probably in the wall-streeters' manifesto. And if it isn't, there's a footnote that reads "This doesn't include everything. These are just the first 150 main points."

And Dan, thanks for the intelligent response to my comment. It just strikes me that this is protesting just for the sake of protesting. I've seen it before and it's entirely unproductive.

I support occupy wall street. I think that the movement lacks a specific direction, you're right. But that's what I'd want. I hardly ever have a conversation with someone and find that we're entirely on the same page, movements that whittle down general beliefs into one or two demands seem like they are coercing their participants. Policymaking demands that kind of simplification, rallying doesn't. I think there is a general direction. Students are sick of debt, the middle class is stunned that programs they had enjoyed are being cut in part because of risky investment on wall street. Others seem to be sick of trying to "pull themselves by the bootstraps".

I saw a billboard that said "Bill Gates founded Microsoft during a recession" What does this mean? We're just not trying hard enough to be obscenely wealthy? I don't think the people who have been at wall street can be convinced that they just have to try harder.